Talk:City workhouse castle

Edit reversion
Dear Smuckola

I'm puzzled by your reversion of my edit of City workhouse castle. It seems you may prefer the Internet Archive version of Encyclopaedia Britannica to the on-line version on EB1911. The [EB1911] version is more accessible, reads more easily and is the preferred source for Wikipedia. To call that "wrecking" is a bit over the top. Where I might agree with you is the absence of a strong need for the short [EB1911] addition that I made to external links.

Might I ask you to read and reflect on the this policy issue shown at WP:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. I hope then you might agree to my re-instating the amendment to ref. 6.ArbieP (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Whooooops. I'm sorry, my friend. I look at things very very very carefully, so this almost never happens. I didn't look at this one as closely as I thought I did. I have never used the EB templates before, and when I followed the link (in mobile mode, barf), I thought I was looking at just the normal Kansas City, Missouri article. So I thought your citation provided *no* link to the EB source. Furthermore, it looks like a good template, with a complete citation. Regarding "absence of a strong need", nope there's clearly zero need whatsoever, which is why it's negated in WP:ELDUP and WP:ELNO, so please remove that EL anywhere else. External links only exist as sources which either must become citations or else official signpost links like type of templates. Thank you so much. — Smuckola(talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)